Thursday, February 24, 2011

Wisconsin

Hungarian socialist political economist Karl Polanyi made the antitheical argument to Hayek in the book The Great Transformation. Polanyi wrote that an uncontrolled free market would lead to repressive economic concentration and then to a co-opting of democratic governance that degrades civil rights.

Polanyi argued that the development of the modern state went hand in hand with the development of modern market economies and that these two changes were inexorably linked in history. His reasoning for this was that the powerful modern state was needed to push changes in social structure that allowed for a competitive capitalist economy, and that a capitalist economy required a strong state to mitigate its harsher effects.

and pretend that the word actually explains anything. We need powerful "modern" state, liberals claim, not just the plain old powerful state. We have always had as powerful states as humanly possible, be it ancient or feudal or absolutist or mercantilist. But no, voila!, it's powerful "modern" state that we have actually needed for prosperity! Now we know!

Of course the word modern means something. It refers to the changes that took place during the rise of science and the Enlightenment, which is what Polanyi's talking about.

The state took on a very different role during this time. In medieval and Renaissance Europe, the state's role was not so all-embracing: other institutions, like the church, guilds, etc. played a larger role in daily economic and social life.

In medieval and Renaissance Europe, the state's role was not so all-embracing: other institutions, like the church, guilds, etc. played a larger role in daily economic and social life.

Played a larger role that was state sanctioned. Does the fact that guilds no longer posess state privileges to control employment and production means we have more "powerful" state? No, precisely the opposite. For example, the ideal socialist "modern" state would basically be same as a feudal state except with guilds renamed to "worker councils" that would plan the employment and production etc. But isn't socialism "modern"? No, it's actually a bunch of rebranded ancient ideas.

Ever thought about cracking a History of Western Civ textbook instead of mindlessly repeating you Market Good/State Bad mantra and filtering everything through that??

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope

For centuries, the Donation of Constantine, later proved to be a forgery, provided support for the papacy's claim of political supremacy over the entire former Western Roman Empire. In medieval times, popes played powerful roles in Western Europe, often struggling with monarchs for control over the wide-ranging affairs of Church and state,[4] crowning emperors (Charlemagne was the first emperor crowned by a pope), and regulating disputes among secular rulers.[6]

popes played powerful roles in Western Europe, often struggling with monarchs for control

Very good. Note it does not read "popes often struggling with monarchs for free market". Looks like you view state "powerfulness" from particular clique perspective, like a monarch. Libertarian point of view is citizen point of view. And a citizen does not care if his taxes go to a monarch or to a pope. A citizen cares only if he pays taxes at all and how high. That's also why changing labels to "socialist" state does not change much. You have to learn to understand past the labels.

Note it does not read "popes often struggling with monarchs for free market". Looks like you view state "powerfulness" from particular clique perspective, like a monarch.

You are so confused that you're running away from your own argument (no surprise. Or maybe it's a conscious effort to do so? I can't tell!) So let me help you here: The Church/State confluence of power was prior to the Enlightenment. The Enlightenment helped usher in modern conceptions of Church & State separation. Therefore, Chris was right. You were wrong.

The Enlightenment helped usher in modern conceptions of Church & State separation.

Very good. And if you were seperated from something by law, would you say you became more powerful? Absurd. Church & State separation is a limitation on government power. Now libertarians fight for Economy & State separation so that not even monarch (or as you prefer, "modern" government) can exploit citizens.

"Now libertarians fight for Economy & State separation so that not even monarch (or as you prefer, "modern" government) can exploit citizens."

How can you separate economy and state? Who would enforce laws? Who would mediate disputes? What would we do for currency?

Government exploiting citizens? Corporations do this; democratic governments don't. In participative democracies, the government enacts policies that people want, and provide help to people who need it. All governments aren't the same.

Actually no. It's a limitation of Church power. The Government is actually able to whatever the hell it wants, without Church interference. Think Roe v Wade, Don't Ask Don't Tell, Gay Marriage or a host of other things would come to place if the Church had anything to say about it? Hmmmmm... I wonder?

Chris, wow so by this point you still don't know how libertarians want to separate economy and state, I thought you knew at least what you were fighting against.

Yes, there is usually relatively little graft in democratic government. However, democratic government often becomes a tool in the hands of lobbyists, because most people don't have a clue about economics/law/technology/etc. Sometimes they represent majority, but most often only small minority, like corporations. So yes, corporations also exploit citizens, via government. Best case scenario of democratic government: majorities exploit minorities (ie when all voters are well informed and actively vote on that knowledge).

The Government is actually able to whatever the hell it wants, without Church interference.

You don't even notice you have completely reversed your position from your previous comment, don't you... First you say democratic government never exploits citizens. Now you say it can do whatever the hell it wants. If so, then why doesn't government exploit citizens? Because it's benevolent? Haha. You are soooo confused.

Think Roe v Wade, Don't Ask Don't Tell, Gay Marriage

Okay, now I see where your problem is. You seem to believe that the power is a zero-sum game exclusively between Church and State. No, as usual for liberals, you forget about the PEOPLE. Church does not need to become more powerful just because State got weakened. PEOPLE do not need to be enslaved by some other party. PEOPLE got more powerful, while both State and Church were weakened. Obviously, Church never had any direct power (except I guess in Vatican), but again, like with corporation lobbyists, it used the State to grant itself privileges, ie to exploit citizens.

Seems reasonable, since the PEOPLE seem to always forget about YOU election after ele3ction and completely reject your philosophy year after year. ;-)

Church does not need to become more powerful just because State got weakened.

Except that the separation of Church and State does not logically lead to a weakened state. The USSR is clear proof of this. Same with China. Ask the Dali Lama.

PEOPLE got more powerful, while both State and Church were weakened.

Your talking out your rear if you think those things were brought about by a people's revolt. Abortion was unilaterally legalized by the SCOTUS. Gay marriage was brought in by local state legislatures, and still hasn't won any state ballot measure elections. You could argue that public opinion has/is continuing to swing in favor of those things since then, but it's hard to prove that such was the popular consensus and that's why governing bodies responded accordingly.

"Democratic government often becomes a tool in the hands of lobbyists, because most people don't have a clue about economics/law/technology/etc. Sometimes they represent majority, but most often only small minority, like corporations."

Yet libertarian ideas are used to justify exactly what you describe here. The Koch Bros. created lobby groups and think tanks to saturate American culture with libertarian rhetoric. They've done much to insure that only the wealthy business class's interests are attended to. And they use libertarian rhetoric to justify this: they are employers, the prime movers, the productive minority, the deserving and capable individuals.

I do know what I'm fighting against, Joanna, and it's this. Not your pleas that libertarianism is better because it's just better (all things being equal).

And I agree with Kevin that separation of church and state is a limitation on church, not state power. Read Byzantine history, or that of the Holy Roman Empire.

Chris, reading objective history is outside the scope of her ilk. Why do that when you can pull it out of your ass as you go along? Nobody else who's taken an introductory History of Western Civ class seem to think Separation of Church and state is a limitation on State power. It's just re-shuffling the deck. But Joanna Constipation repre4sents the "citizens view" don't you know? Now if they can just get the Citizens to agree!

The Koch Bros.[...]I do know what I'm fighting against, Joanna, and it's this.

Okay, so you're fighting against some people's interpretation of libertarianism. I might as well say I'm not a socialist because Kaddafi calls himself a socialist (Leader of the Socialist People's Libyan Arab Jamahiriya). It's stupid.

I agree with Kevin that separation of church and state is a limitation on church, not state power

Again, if you separate two entities by law (ie against their will), you don't possibly empower them in any meaningful way. You weaken them. Think. Unless I guess you believe government is like a poor autistic/retarded child that needs protection from evil church power...

You can't claim to be articulating "the citizens point of view" and be at variance with the people's views in the real world. That's logically incoherent.

I have never claimed it. I'm just saying, if you put a fork in your eye, you'll ruin your eye. From libertarian point of view, ruining your eye is a bad thing for you. But libertarians will always actively support your right to do so.

The Koch Bothers are not merely "some people's interpretation of libertarianism". They are the dominant voice in libertarianism. You are welcome to denounce them the way esentially all socialists would denounce Kaddafi.

"if you separate two entities by law (ie against their will), you don't possibly empower them in any meaningful way. You weaken them."One of the major aims of liberalism is to disperse power, not keep it concentrated. Allowing any small combination of players to get too powerful renders the other relatively weak. That's why we have democracy: if the ultimate power is the wishes of a majority, you have pretty much the maximum number of people wielding power. And the more people in the game, the less chance of oppression. Capitalism, whatever its virtues, does not disperse power. Libertarians often pretend that there is no "power" in their "non-coercive" utopia, but that's wishful thinking.

if the ultimate power is the wishes of a majority, you have pretty much the maximum number of people wielding power.

But you know what "majority" means, don't you, so why pretend you don't? Your "pretty much the maximum number" can easily be as low as 51%. Burning Jews? No problem. No, the maximum number just so happens to be 100%.

Capitalism, whatever its virtues, does not disperse power.

Yes that's precisely what it does, private property is the only known tool to stop majority from exploiting minority, ie to achieve "the maximum number of people wielding power", which just so happens to be 100%, not 51%.

Yes that's precisely what it does, private property is the only known tool to stop majority from exploiting minority, ie to achieve "the maximum number of people wielding power", which just so happens to be 100%, not 51%.

XD OMG

The only way for property to achieve 100% of people wielding power is to distribute if by fiat! The free market wont do that, and the fact that Capitalists defend the existence of some rich and some poor is proof.

Joanna, if you're claiming that ownership is power, then capitalism is a method of concentrating ownership and thus concentrating power. Ownership is far less evenly distributed than votes.

The concentrations of capitalist ownership have ONLY been dispersed at the ballot box: through inheritance laws, progressive taxation, laws against monopolies, etc.

Capitalism gave us that notorious concentration of ownership, slavery, and slavery has always been abolished and prohibited by government fiat, not by capitalism.

"Burning Jews" has never been a result of democracy. But if you are afraid of "tyranny of the majority", go read The Federalist. That's why we are a democratic representative republic, instead of a direct democracy.

There's no perfect solution to the problems of power: you cannot wish them away and have your ideology taken seriously. History just doesn't show capitalism as solving problems of power. Not in company towns, not in plutocracy, etc.

Kevin, afaik about 70% Americans own their houses, so that's already better than 51%. Then we can make people owners of their own body and fruits of their labor, which covers 100% sane adults, again way better than 51%.

I can't really get your citizen point of view "reasoning". So what you say is we should alternate between liberal and conservative every few years along with public opinion then? Or that we should be allowed to choose only between the two most popular views (and wholesale)?

Its distribution does not matter because ownership never gives you power over _other_people (ie, positive rights). It only gives you power over _yourself_ (ie, negative rights). You can't own other people. Unless, that is, when we have democracy and 51% people think it is okay to own other people. Then they elect government and legalise slavery. On the other hand, in a democracy, votes give you positive power over other people, so we distribute it evenly in order at least to try to achieve the best case scenarios of majority exploiting minority. Of course, we usually fail even that:

Haha, Mike at his best ;) Right, as if slavery was not a legal government regulated institution in the first place...

"Burning Jews" has never been a result of democracy.

Well, it's not like it was just Hitler's idea. He may have had "merely" 37% of support, but it's still more than many of our contemporary government actions have. Actually, we could even legally burn all liberals half of the time, provided at least 51% of people wished so. Okay, so we don't burn people no more. Because we are nicer guys now? Not really nicer, rather more sophisticated. People have rediscovered the old truth it's more profitable to exploit other people's assess rather than burn them. Liberals are sort of modern slave masters.

The amount of property ownership never alters one's power relative to other people who have less?

And as a voting citizen in a democracy, I have *more* power over other people than somebody who owns a massive energy corporation, with large labor force and de facto ownership of needed resources, who thus *only* has power over him/herself?

I can't really get your citizen point of view "reasoning". So what you say is we should alternate between liberal and conservative every few years along with public opinion then? Or that we should be allowed to choose only between the two most popular views (and wholesale)?

The-peo-pl-think-your-phi-lo-so-phy-is-stu-pd. So they don't give a rats ass, and they've chosen not to follow you.

Ownership IS power over other people in at least two ways. First, because you are demanding that they not use your "property". It's a prohibition, as sure as any other prohibition you'd like to name. Second, because you can always purchase coercion with the value of what you own, legal or not.

Of course you can own people, and without any government involvement. The same way you can own anything else. Almost every society has had slavery: our modern relatively slave-free society is a great exception, and that is entirely due to government prohibition of slavery.

Hey, meathead, read some history of the holocaust. The mass killing of the Jews was little known to the populace, and shocked them when it was exposed at the end of the war. It was not a policy created publicly, nor was there democratic ratification of it.

"Liberals are sort of modern slave masters."Enjoy your new home in Somalia.

It's a prohibition, as sure as any other prohibition you'd like to name.

"As sure as" not, at least not in the sense of "exactly same" you try to express. Prohibition of exploitation of your ass by other people differs substatially from prohibition of say, alcohol. That's the difference between positive and negative rights which you seem to have trouble to understand. Basics.

you can always purchase coercion with the value of what you own.

Yes you can, same as you can kick anyone's balls any time, but you may not. That's what the police is for. Ufff.

Almost every society has had slavery

Except for those whose government never made slavery legal. Note for slavery you have to specifically differentiate between those with and w/o human (or "free man" etc) rights. That's precisely what government law was specifying in detail since the Greek city states. Basics.

our modern relatively slave-free society is a great exception, and that is entirely due to government prohibition of slavery

Which would never need be prohibited if it were not made legal and government regulated in the first place.

The mass killing of the Jews was little known to the populace, and shocked them when it was exposed at the end of the war.

How typical of any collectivism, isn't it. First you think exploiting other people's assess is a good idea, but then you become "shocked" by consequences.

Enjoy your new home in Somalia

No liberals in Somalia? I doubt it, The Somali Revolutionary Socialist Party was the governing political party in Somalia from 1976 to 1991. The socialist government of former President of Somalia Siad Barre had put an end to private medical practice in 1972. Quite a progressive paradise, Mike, it's all there on the evil wikipedia:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Somalia

Yes I guess if not for government regulated slavery and limited rights for hundreds of years, afroamericans would be richer nowadays.

The-peo-pl-think-your-phi-lo-so-phy-is-stu-pd. So they don't give a rats ass, and they've chosen not to follow you.

Finally a correct statement! Way to go, Kevin!

How was the American public persuaded to the stampede to get us into Iraq?

Well you you were not persuaded, were you? This is just in your mind. No, you are neither less nor more independent thinker than other people, your narcist imagination at work.

As if that wasn't voted in by the people who had the money to sway elections.

Same as in previous point.

I.e, CAPITALISM (See Murdoch example, above.)

It's easy to blame Murdoch, Nike and Coca-Cola (ie whatever they show on TV) for all the world ills, but think for a moment. This is just your narcist imagination at work. In reality, other people are neither less nor more independent thinkers than you. People who believe in Iraq war would believe in it anyway, with or w/o Murdoch. He simply sells a product that people like to buy. Obviously, we would have ended the war way quicker if not for _democracy_, which in practice lets government make decisions even against majority. Then obviously, a libertarian state would have never even started Iraq war because its government simply has no resources to pursue such war in the first place.

Yes you can, same as you can kick anyone's balls any time, but you may not. That's what the police is for. Ufff

Several people I know would like to call the cops on Rupert Murdoch. But see, they have this slight problem: Mind-controlled Libertarian types keep defending his right to do whatever he does that makes money, even if it's profiteering off the war. All the while out the other side of their mouths, denouncing wars.

Which would never need be prohibited if it were not made legal and government regulated in the first place.

There needs not not even be a finger lifted by the government to have slavery. It goes like this: I want to enslave you. I put a collar around your neck. You resist. I bullwhip you. Voi-la'! In the desert no one can hear you scream.

No liberals in Somalia? I doubt it,

Would you like us to walk through that Wikipedia article in baby steps for you, since you obviously don't understand it? We liberals totally believe in helping the retarded and have no qualms about not profiteering, you know. ;-)

Finally a correct statement! Way to go, Kevin!

Glad you finally got it after I parsed it in baby steps for you.

Well you you were not persuaded, were you? This is just in your mind.

Not persuaded once. I don't think defending personal wealth is so important I suspend all judgment.

No, you are neither less nor more independent thinker than other people

I and many others tried to persuade some of those *cough*independent thinkers*cough* differently but you see we had this problem. Rupert Murdoch got to them 1st. When fat-assed rich people are afraid of losing everything, they can be told lots of things. Like... less government regulation is a good thing and there are WMD's in Iraq.

People who believe in Iraq war would believe in it anyway, with or w/o Murdoch. He simply sells a product that people like to buy. Obviously, we would have ended the war way quicker if not for _democracy_, which in practice lets government make decisions even against majority.

Two sentences that make no logically coherent sense taken together. Shall I baby-step that one out for you, too?

obviously, a libertarian state would have never even started Iraq war because its government simply has no resources to pursue such war in the first place.

And that's why Bob Barr was such a wonderful opponent of the Bush agenda at every single turn.

Next you'll be blaming theft on government because government doesn't make and enforce harsh enough laws.

Interesting analogy. So we should not be blaming slavery on government because government doesn't make and enforce harsh enough laws? I remember you claim libertarians want slavery back, because libertarian government would allegedly make voluntary slavery legal. But here you claim government is not to blame even when it makes old good slavery legal! Wow, how can I ever untangle your mind, Mike?

Mind-controlled Libertarian types keep defending his right to do whatever he does that makes money, even if it's profiteering off the war. All the while out the other side of their mouths, denouncing wars.

There can be no true freedom of speach if you are not ready to defend your _opponents'_ freedom of speach. Ufffff.

There needs not not even be a finger lifted by the government to have slavery

Precisely, only government dedicated to private property rights protection lifts the finger.

In the desert no one can hear you scream.

What on earth are you talking about? What desert? Atlanta, Georgia a desert?

Glad you finally got it after I parsed it in baby steps for you.

Rather you've finally limited yourself to the obvious empirical facts instead of claiming that citizens can never err. Way to go.

Not persuaded once. I don't think defending personal wealth is so important I suspend all judgment.

Again belittling other people's judgment. You, the independent thinker. They, the persuaded masses. I'm not saying people don't err. Obviously, as a libertarian, I believe over 90% people err. And so yes, they are stupid. However I never buy the whole "persuasion" argument. You have no proof whatsoever. Rather it is the other way around, they are so stupid that they buy conservative/liberal opinions.

And that's why Bob Barr was such a wonderful opponent of the Bush agenda at every single turn.

I'm absolutely fine with criticizing libertarians for not being libertarians enough. I can't see how that is supposed to help you win any purely ideological argument against libertarianism though.

There can be no true freedom of speach if you are not ready to defend your _opponents'_ freedom of speach. Ufffff.

Speech. Learn to spell. So you're ready to bring back equal time and limits on ownership of media-outlets and increase funding of Public Media outlets! Good! Because that's the only way you can guarantee freedom of speech.

However I never buy the whole "persuasion" argument. You have no proof whatsoever.

In the US he has been a long-time supporter of the Republican Party and was a friend of Ronald Reagan. Regarding Pat Robertson's 1988 presidential bid, he said, "He's right on all the issues." Many Christian conservatives were dismayed when Robertson sold his television network to Murdoch. Murdoch's papers strongly supported George W. Bush in both the 2000 and 2004 presidential elections.

Murdoch's publications worldwide tend to adopt conservative views. During the buildup to the 2003 invasion of Iraq, all 175 Murdoch-owned newspapers worldwide editorialized in favour of the war. Murdoch also served on the board of directors of the libertarian Cato Institute. News Corp-owned Fox News is often criticized for a strong conservative and anti-liberal bias.

Wait... what was that again?Murdoch also served on the board of directors of the libertarian Cato Institute

One more time because I want to make sure I understood correctly!

Murdoch also served on the board of directors of the libertarian Cato Institute

Rather it is the other way around, they are so stupid that they buy conservative/liberal opinions.

I wonder why this is? Could it be because of the diet they are fed by the Murdochs of the world? Could it be because both parties are dialing for the the same corporate dollars? So people are never the product of anything they watch, read, or is in urban legend/popular culture? They just blunder onto it, I guess.

As long as we're addressing this, here's something that you likely have no clue about American politics that I'll let you in on: It used to be that the Leauge Of Women Voters ran all the Presidential Debates. Then the 2 major parties got upset because they had to share the stage with Ross Perot. So they started making untenable demands on the LWV and replaced it with a Corporation: Run by one Democrat and one Republican, and funded by big dollars.

So you want proof of the necessity of big money having a grip on outcomes, there you are:

So what power exactly has, say, IKEA, over you? Maybe you should call 911?

Cheeky comment, but not substantive.

And easily reversed on you -- residents in Louisiana and Mississippi probably want to call 911 on BP.

Your assumption that private enterprise = benevolence and government = malevolence is too simple. Government obviously be influenced to a great degree by the money and economic clout of capitalists. It can also be influenced by average people rallying around causes, unionizing, etc. A balance of political and economic interests *can* be achieved through government. There is no evidence that capitalism, unregulated, ever does, or ever will, aim at such a balance.

Me: There needs not not even be a finger lifted by the government to have slavery

You: Precisely, only government dedicated to private property rights protection lifts the finger.

I put our two statements together because I wanted it to be clear what you just said: goverments dedicated to private property rights protection causes Slavery. Yep, that's exactly what you said!

What on earth are you talking about?

Somalia! ;-)

Rather you've finally limited yourself to the obvious empirical facts instead of claiming that citizens can never err.

No, I claimed you don't speak for the Citizens' point of View.

I'm absolutely fine with criticizing libertarians for not being libertarians enough.

Like Rupert Murdoch?

As I explained before and this discussion so proves in bold relief, Libertarianism is merely a shill for the Rich and Powerful to pull the teeth of governments so they cannot be stopped from hoodwinking the people!

Yes, please forgive me, I actually sort of use you to practice my foreign language skills (I'm a self lerner), hopefully my english is not so bad all in all.

Because that's the only way you can guarantee freedom of speech.

No cause that would introduce positive freedoms which automatically ruin negative ones, so no, equal time and public media in fact ruin freedom of speech.

Murdoch also served on the board of directors of the libertarian Cato Institute

Was there supposed to be any point here that did not make it? Like (just guessing) that there are as "many" as 2% libertarians thanks to Murdoch? Well, if your persuasion theory were true, one might think with 175 newspapers he has screwed up a lot of money with little to show for it.

Murdoch's publications worldwide tend to adopt conservative views

Precisely, Murdoch sells what other people want to buy, that's all there is to it, no need to belittle other people's elementary judgement process. People are stupid all right, but note retards have the most independent opinions of all... That's why we say "stubborn as a mule" and not "open to persuasion as a mule".

Matter of fact... where are those countries that have a multiplicity of political views represented every election?

Those with multiple-winner electoral methods. I think this has little to do with our discussion.

Canada? Holland? Sweden That's right, Socialist Countries!

It is erroneous to call a country socialist just because it has higher government spending relative to GDP. After all, they can waste so much taxpayers money precisely because they are so capitalist in all other areas (like police and courts efficiently enforcing private real estate rights etc). All the countries you've listed are very high on heritage freedom index. No wonder when you consider all the global capitalist corporations that have originated and continue to thrive there.

But alas poor China, it will never have more than 1 party now. Well, you said it was becoming more Capitalist!

Becoming <> Be. China is still significantly less capitalist than Sweden.

There needs not even be a finger lifted by the government to have slavery, so government SHOULD lift the finger against it and only government dedicated to private property rights protection actually DOES lift the finger.

Somalia! ;-)

Yeah, and Mars is libertarian because there is also no government there? "Great" minds think alike:

http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/304969

Truly, almost beautifully retarded.

No, I claimed you don't speak for the Citizens' point of View.

I'm a citizen all right, liberals don't have a monopoly on that.

Rupert MurdochBob BarrAlan GreenspanKoch Brothers

What's wrong with the guys again? I mean, as far as I know, they are all now at large, maybe you should call 911?